Pages

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Writing a Response to EPSRC Reviews

Making a virtue of criticism

Last week we had an impromptu Grants Factory workshop, prompted by the visit of the EPSRC's Jane Nicholson the week before. Focussing on applying to EPSRC, Profs Simon Thompson (Computing) and Sarah Spurgeon (EDA) spoke about their experience of sitting on EPSRC panels, before running a 'mock panel' exercise in the second half of the event. It was a really useful event, and I thought it would be good to jot down some notes from it, particularly around the vexed question of responding to reviewers' comments, which is crucial in applying to any of the Research Councils. So, if you have recently received your comments and are mulling over your response, some top tips:

The
panel aren’t re-reviewing the application. They are instead moderating the
reviews and ranking the applications accordingly. Thus, the PI response is
critical, as it’s your only chance to answer any concerns or criticisms. Whilst
it’s not mandatory, you should always provide a response. As Prof Sarah
Spurgeon said at the event, ‘writing a good response does make a competitive
difference’.

Some
of the reviewers’ comments can be hurtful. You’ve invested time in the
application, and they can be dismissive or even wrong-headed. Don’t respond in
haste. Take time to provide a measured, considered response. Don’t dismiss any
comment that is ‘obviously’ wrong: you can make it clear that you disagree
without using emotive language. For instance, suggest that you want to ‘clarify’
a point.

Go
through the reviewers and pick out every comment that needs a response. List
them, and answer them in order.

Give
evidence to rebut the criticisms. Once again, don’t be hasty and impassioned. This
is the time to be clear and analytical. Give the panellists just the information
they need, the information necessary to ‘empower’ them;it’s not the time to be quoting complicated
mathematical formulae – unless absolutely necessary.

Some
responses may not be given to the panel before the meeting, but tabled on the
day. The panellists have to read them quickly, so make it easy for them: plain
language, clear formatting, bullet points. Don’t be ‘clever’ with unusual
fonts, minimal margins or complicated figures.

Don’t
clutter the response by thanking the reviewers, or take too long highlighting
the positive points. The panel will have already seen both the application and
the reviews, and will already have a view.

Don’t
feel you have to write to the limit. To quote Prof Spurgeon again: ‘a short
response is more powerful.’

Finally,
if the reviewers have suggested a good idea, there’s no harm in welcoming
it and agreeing with them – as long as it doesn’t contradict the main thrust of
your proposal.